Dire Moose
2015-09-22, 11:02 PM
...it includes almost no fossil taxa whatsoever.
Link to article, which includes link to database (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150918180310.htm)
While I am impressed with how many taxa were included in this database, including loads and loads of obscure species of bacteria, plants, fungi, etc., I cannot believe this oversight. This whole "tree of life" is nothing but a series of leaves with no branches, trunk, or roots. It contains information on thousands of different insects and bacteria, yet when looking at reptiles, it skips straight from crocodiles to modern birds without even giving a thought to the 500 or so species of dinosaurs in between.
Even in mammals, which fared better, the tree jumps straight from reptiles to monotremes with none of the mammal-like reptiles in between. There is also nothing between chimps and humans. No australopithecines, no Homo erectus, nothing. All the various subspecies of eastern and western gorilla are there, but poor Homo is represented by one lonely species.
Well-known fossil organisms like Tyrannosaurus, Pteranodon, and Triceratops? Missing. Important transitional forms like Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Ambulocetus? Not there. Entire clades of organisms with no ancestors.
Initially, I thought this was due to it being based on genetic data, which isn't preserved in most fossils, but upon reading the paper published with it I found out that a combination of molecular and morphological data were used, and that it's based on a combination of already-published trees from different papers. That leaves the creators of this tree with no excuse. Paleontologists have published many papers on fossil organisms throughout the years describing their morphology and constructing family trees based on it, all of which could have been incorporated into this tree, yet the creators chose to ignore them.
And yet, the only reactions I have seen around the Internet consist of people singing the praises of this new tree of life. I have to wonder not only why fossil taxa are missing from this tree, but why nobody else seems to have noticed this and considered it as the massive oversight that it was?
Link to article, which includes link to database (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150918180310.htm)
While I am impressed with how many taxa were included in this database, including loads and loads of obscure species of bacteria, plants, fungi, etc., I cannot believe this oversight. This whole "tree of life" is nothing but a series of leaves with no branches, trunk, or roots. It contains information on thousands of different insects and bacteria, yet when looking at reptiles, it skips straight from crocodiles to modern birds without even giving a thought to the 500 or so species of dinosaurs in between.
Even in mammals, which fared better, the tree jumps straight from reptiles to monotremes with none of the mammal-like reptiles in between. There is also nothing between chimps and humans. No australopithecines, no Homo erectus, nothing. All the various subspecies of eastern and western gorilla are there, but poor Homo is represented by one lonely species.
Well-known fossil organisms like Tyrannosaurus, Pteranodon, and Triceratops? Missing. Important transitional forms like Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and Ambulocetus? Not there. Entire clades of organisms with no ancestors.
Initially, I thought this was due to it being based on genetic data, which isn't preserved in most fossils, but upon reading the paper published with it I found out that a combination of molecular and morphological data were used, and that it's based on a combination of already-published trees from different papers. That leaves the creators of this tree with no excuse. Paleontologists have published many papers on fossil organisms throughout the years describing their morphology and constructing family trees based on it, all of which could have been incorporated into this tree, yet the creators chose to ignore them.
And yet, the only reactions I have seen around the Internet consist of people singing the praises of this new tree of life. I have to wonder not only why fossil taxa are missing from this tree, but why nobody else seems to have noticed this and considered it as the massive oversight that it was?